ADDED: I think Nancy Nolan is being a drama queen. If anybody really cares about carbon emissions, stop your crying and be hard-headed about what emits carbon. It's not the person per se, but what the person does. Back in 2010, I made a list of changes you could make to your behavior. No air conditioning isn't on the list, because that is already a given. If you haven't done that yet, Nancy and the Weepers, you are crying crocodile tears. So get up and switch that off. Forever. And now, read my list:

1. Your weight should be at the low end of normal, indicating that you are not overconsuming the products of agriculture.

2. You should not engage in vigorous physical exercise, as this will increase your caloric requirements. You may do simple weight-lifting or calisthenics to keep in shape. Check how many calories per hour are burned and choose a form of exercise that burns as few calories as possible.

3. Free time should be spent sitting or lying still without using electricity. Don't run the television or music playing device. Reading, done by sunlight is the best way to pass free time. After dark, why not have a pleasant conversation with friends or family? Word games or board games should replace sports or video games.

4. Get up at sunrise. Don't waste the natural light. Try never to turn on the electric lights in your house or workplace. Put compact fluorescent bulbs in all your light fixtures. The glow is so ugly that it will reduce the temptation to turn them on.

5. Restrict your use of transportation. Do not assume that walking or biking is less productive of carbon emissions than using a highly efficient small car. Do not go anywhere you don't have to go. When there is no food in the house to make dinner, instead of hopping in the car to go to the grocery store or a restaurant, take it as a cue to fast. As noted above, your weight should be at the low end of normal, and opportunities to reach or stay there should be greeted with a happy spirit.

6. If you have free time, such as a vacation from work, spend it in your home town. Read library books, redo old jigsaw puzzles, meditate, tell stories to your children — the list of activities is endless. Just thinking up more items to put on that list is an activity that could be on the list. Really embrace this new way of life. A deep satisfaction and mental peace can be achieved knowing that you are saving the earth.

Great list of laws, but it stops at 6. Moses did 10 without breaking a sweat.That 6 Commandments should be in every Roommate agreement next to no men to stay overnight unless he brings a friend for me.

The idea that you shouldn't bring children into such an awful world is a left-wing cliche that's been running for at least half a century now.

They used to say the same thing about the Cold War and nukes.

The TV sitcom "All in the Family" had Michael and Gloria debating that question.

And now it's global warming.

It was trendy during the Cold War.

But now it's a cliche.

It never seems to occur to these people that if solutions are to be found for the world's problems, the next generation will have to find them. It's the young who bring new perspectives and new ideas. Hence refusing to bring children into the world is what will really ensure that our civilization will have no future.

Pretty good list, but books are printed on big machines that run on lots of electricity. Then there is the ink and paper!

The library idea is best. Only read existing books. That we last a life time anyway. Limit your exercise to that which doesn't require equipment that required huge amounts of energy to produce. E.g. walking and pushups.

Do not contribute charities that try to improve the lives of those people living subsistence lives it 3rd world country. Purifying water and stuff like that takes energy.

Since the 60s there's been a prediction of the end of the world as we know if if every 10 years. If we don't follow the more learned among us and stop....something that we're doing... It was the new ice age, then it was over-population, then horrible global food shortages, then global warming, now climate change- whatever that is. I guess its anything you want it to be when convenient. If not convenient, its not to be mentioned.

As for overpopulation- western countries and Japan are now reproducing at a rate lower than replacement rate. So- we're already in the process of Darwinning ourselves out of the contest. Science is no longer science as the race is not for facts and checking, but for publishing and joining. Plus...tenure! Global food shortages need not happen but the 'wise' among us will prevent us from GMO foods so that those who need it, won't be able to get it.

Everyday you read another reason why NPR should be forced to stand on it's own. No more tax dollars. Let the 30 or so who need it pay for it. Allow the millions wasted on it to be put into a special escrow account used to hold millions and billions wasted from other government 'programs' as we find them. Climate Change indeed.

Rob beat me to the punch. His solution is the correct one. Not having children isn't a big enough commitment -- they need to sacrifice themselves to Climate Gaia immediately. I volunteer to push them into a volcano -- it would be my gift to the gene pool.

My grandmother reportedly admonished my mother with the epithet, "I hope your children treat you the way you are treating me!" Which is an entirely different curse from hoping for an end to reproduction, but still fun to hear reported as a small child misbehaving.

Grandma also made very good gingerbread men. She was a delight and I miss her, something the nonexistent grandkids of the linked parent can not say, and likely would not say were they ever to exist.

sinz52 has it right. Us baby boomers that have paid attention, know that the end of the world has always been 40 years away. Just far enough into the future you can imagine it, and far enough away any concrete measurement is problematic.People ignore Paul Erlichs, "The Population Bomb". Go back and read his conclusions. Or rather his recounting of settled science. After all Science is science. Am I right.Nuclear power spelled out the end of the world as we knew it. Pesticides are rampant in our drinking water, and have been since the advent of 2,4D in the 50's. It a real problem, exceptpesky epidemiologists have failed to find any correlation and that has hindered, but not eliminated the causation premise.Don't forget 'peak oil' that spelled the end of energy on the planet.I could go on, but the book Chicken Little, which dates back to the early 1800's was written due to past history. Pessimism sells

If this lady is sixty-seven years old, she was having her children not less than forty years ago -- c. 1976. The dominant paradigm then was global cooling -- the New Ice Age. The irony seems to be lost on her.

You did mention library books in the last suggestion, but it would have been best to specify that she can't buy any books when you first recommended reading as a leisure activity. Think of the carbon that goes into producing and distributing them, and a Kindle's ruled out for the same reasons as the television and music-playing device. Also, since she can't travel far from home, library books are only an option if the library's around the corner. Otherwise, she'll have to rely on storytelling, as everybody did before the printing press.

As for conversations and board games with her family, she can't have many of those because she's not allowed to have children. The number of board games you can play with a single spouse is limited, and she can't have friends over much because of the ban on unnecessary travel.

It would have been so much simpler just to kill herself - along with those children she shouldn't have had, of course - as soon as she found out about climate change.

"Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child. Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids."

Of course, there's a tax somewhere in the scheme.

"..it's not like China's abusive one-child policy..."

Sure it is. But since it's from the left, we'll give it a pass.

"...worries about stigma, especially against poor and minority women..."

So the rules only apply to, you know, the 'rich' and 'white'.

"...it becoming much easier for wealthy people to have children than for other people to have children..."

Which, of course, flies in the face of actual birth rates. Poor nations and poor people see large families as a plus. More earners, more help, more famliy assets.

" And yet, when she imagines raising a child, Ferorelli says she can't help but envision the nightmare scenarios that have dogged her since she first heard the term "global warming" in elementary school.

"Knowing that I gave that future to somebody is something that just doesn't sit very well," she says."

These poor people and their anxieties. The lesson should be that we are scaring children with nightmare scenarios in elementary school, and we should cut that out.

The main guy in the story sounds like a controlling husband who married someone who knew she wanted a large family, and he's using an excuse to keep her from having what she wants.

""Here's a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them," Rieder says."

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Many readers here recall that infamous quote from the Vietnam war but not professor Reider.

I am of the strong (and minority) opinion that CAGW is a complete SCAM. I'm glad that NPR ran this piece as it well illustrates the absurdity of CAGW. In short I submit that CAGW is not science at all but wild speculation about a future event based upon corrupt data. It has been wrong for at least 18 years. The con artist aspect of the scam is that the scammers never tell you when NYC floods; just "some day."

Recently the EPA wrote in the Federal Register that adopting the Clean Power Plan would avoid 0.018 temp increase by 2100. Think about those numbers.

Another aspect of the CAGW scam revealed in the NPR story is the founding of a non-profit promoting their loony ideas so that the scamsters can make money.

Hillary backs CAGW as it gets federal tax money to Silicon Valley types like Elon Musk and drives American oil, gas and coal companies into bankruptcy; about 100 so far this year.

The CAGW issue is perfect for Crooked Hillary: It is a lie. Reason enough to vote Trump. Electricity goes to European rates; three times higher than here.

Yes, drama. Safe spaces, first amendment zones, triggering, hand-wringing about 'climate change'.Lead by example. The list Ann has provided is appropriate for the hand-wringers (less CFL's which are a toxic cocktail in formed glass), but, we know drama is oft-intended by the drama-bringers to alter the behavior of others. And therein lies the rub.Do as I say, not as I do, has taken modern form in concern-trolling for the express purpose of erecting nonexistent moral high ground.

"Think of the carbon that goes into producing and distributing them, and a Kindle's ruled out for the same reasons as the television and music-playing device. Also, since she can't travel far from home, library books are only an option if the library's around the corner. Otherwise, she'll have to rely on storytelling, as everybody did before the printing press."

In my town, people have this "little library" boxes out by the sidewalk. They're packed with books and the instruction is take one and leave one. That way the existing books get passed around. So let the Nancys put such boxes on their property and set their books out there when they are done reading and check to see what others have left. If people are good about this, there will be plenty of reading for everyone without going to an official bricks-and-mortar library.

If you do the things on the list here, no one will really notice and no one will ask about it. There are still enough nosy people around that will ask if you have children, do you plan on having any, and why you aren't. Then you get to tell them all about what a good person you are and how you are sacrificing for humanity.

Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world's poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, "and that seems unfair," he says.

There's also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.

"Here's a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them," Rieder says.

It would make the most sense to discourage the people in the poor countries who will suffer the climate impact from having kids now. Perhaps the greenest option is to stop sending aid in the form of people and money over to save the lives of the people who will just be destroyed anyway. That will cut down on carbon emissions. It also saves future people in the same way vegetarians save future cattle.

If there are generations to not be born, it makes more sense to have them not be born where they are going to be destroyed anyway.

The hysteria NPR is happy to gin up assures me that Nature is more subtle and inexorable than even the ridiculous Travis Rieder can comprehend. Thanks to Ma Nature the generation that has proved much more expensive and socially pernicious than it was ever worth is about about to go extinct, leaving no descendants!

A fiend of mine worked in a small book store. They sold used paperbacks only. The pricing structure was the book sold for 1/2 of the cover price. Once read, it could be returned for 1/2 of that price (or 1/4 of the original cover price). He said one book was sold 52 times.

"As for conversations and board games with her family, she can't have many of those because she's not allowed to have children. The number of board games you can play with a single spouse is limited." I recommend blind chess.

"There's also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now. "Here's a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them," Rieder says." Even as deep-green anti humanism, this is incoherent. If the ultimate value is to avoid harming Gaia, then the lives of future generations have no greater claim on our moral concern than "our kids." If the quality of the lives of actual human beings remains the standard by which the evil of devastation is measured, then we do not "protect" "our kids" by not having them.

Put compact fluorescent bulbs in all your light fixtures. The glow is so ugly that it will reduce the temptation to turn them on.

Are you still beating this dead horse? Get yourself to the Home Depot Ann and buy yourself some LEDs (they have them in 100 watt equivalents now). You can get them in a variety of color temperature, even to mimic the old incandescent cast you love so much.

"valuing children as a means to an end — be it to cure climate change or, say, provide soldiers for the state — is ethically problematic."

And yet devaluing them because they will produce carbon dioxide is ethically okay?

In any case, a shrinking population will always be one in which a large chunk of GDP will go into caring for the old. A future society which is wealthy and powerful will be in a better position to deal with climate change (should it come) than an impoverished and diminished one.

No Freder, I bought enough of the old bulbs to last a lifetime. The fucking zealots will have to go house to house to get them out of my lamps. And my house is in Texas, so we are armed to the teeth. Plan accordingly.

The selective or variable value of human life is a first-order cause of the catastrophic anthropogenic abortion crisis. More human lives are lost to elective abortion and Planned Parenthood annually than extreme weather phenomena, [progressive] wars, and social justice adventurism. Although, the loss of human life is accelerated in the latter two human-caused disasters.

Two things about lowering the population and the potential for man to solve the issue:1. I understand that an aging population lowers the wealth of the given population. Therefore, less money to spend on the problem. 2. Less people might mean lowering the chances for the next geniuses to be born who would solve the problem.

"Freder Frederson said...Are you still beating this dead horse? Get yourself to the Home Depot Ann and buy yourself some LEDs (they have them in 100 watt equivalents now). You can get them in a variety of color temperature, even to mimic the old incandescent cast you love so much."

Ann, it's very amusing that you made this list! Were you serious? Advocating people give up a/c is akin to starting a revolution. That is not what you should be doing - it turns people into instant victims. They can tell people to work work work (something left off your list, I notice), but you cannot tell them to do without air conditioning.

Are you still beating this dead horse? Get yourself to the Home Depot Ann and buy yourself some LEDs (they have them in 100 watt equivalents now). You can get them in a variety of color temperature, even to mimic the old incandescent cast you love so much.

1. Our hostess has reposted something she wrote 6 years ago.

2. And she has offered a proposal that would induce the hand-wringers and others of your leftie fellow travelers incentives to sit in the dark while they fret.

Since offering a more comfortable light source would defeat the purpose of the proposal, you have, as usual, missed the point.

I have a more pleasant suggestion: Vote for smaller government. That government will use less energy wastefully propping up its leaders and employees for votes. It will let the more efficient and waste conscious private sector do more of the work. This smaller government will release private actors to actually solve problems rather than just creating new ways of taxing that force citizens to work harder and pollute more for no gain. All this will create a more productive, less wasteful, more wealthy society which are the societies that eventually pollute less per unit of production and the ones that invent, develop and install pollution controls. It is such wealthy societies that take the steps to save habitats, species, and environments for future generations. It is not governments that improve us, and protect the planet, but freedom from poverty, and necessity, which is not accomplished by control but by unleashed human ingenuity in the pursuit of happiness.

I bought a case of LED bulbs from Amazon. The light is excellent, the energy use is of course low, and so far, after several months, none has failed, which is more than I can say for the halogens they replaced.

A lighting contractor advised me that quality varies greatly from brand to brand, and said the house brand at Home Depot is quite good. That turns out to be GreenCreative, which I found on Amazon.

To reduce global warming emissions, people should move to climates that do not require heating. That will cause the global temperature to drop, which will result in fewer such locations until we are all living Hawaii. Doesn't that sound nice? I'll go first.

In my town, people have this "little library" boxes out by the sidewalk. They're packed with books and the instruction is take one and leave one. That way the existing books get passed around. So let the Nancys put such boxes on their property and set their books out there when they are done reading and check to see what others have left. If people are good about this, there will be plenty of reading for everyone without going to an official bricks-and-mortar library.

Per some studies a single dog can be as bad as two SUVs. It may hit too close to home for Ann to note that Fido and Frisky will also need to go. http://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carbon_paw_print_of_your_beloved_pet_partner/

I hear people say this, and being that I was only 2 in 1976, I trust them. That said, I happened to find I had digital access to all of National Geographic's archives and was poking around the mid-70s. Saw an article on climate in which the author noted there wasn't a consensus on which way climate would change, but that there was clear indication of a warming trend, because of air pollution.

7. Stop using antibiotics or other artificial means to extend your life. Work to eliminate the use of all modern medicine for all people, in order to restore the natural average lifespan of human beings and consequently the population of the Earth to a sustainable level.

The upside to this is that you will be able to have as many children as you wish without any feelings of guilt.

The downside to this is that you will probably bury a fair number of them before they reach the age of ten.

Good news, though! You will die early enough that you won't have to watch them bury too many of your grandchildren!

Paddy O--expand your search of mid 1970's magazines. You'll find several issues of Time magazine with cover stories on the New Ice Age. Dang me if I didn't buy a bunch of long johns that I've never had to use. That Time magazine will fool you every chance it gets.

And Nancy Nolan--I know that at age 67 this might not be a problem for you any more. But avoid vigorous sex because it generates a lot of carbon dioxide. The exertion and all----

Tommy, I think I can. People are fine criticizing others building in flood zones, hurricane zones or earthquake zones. But oftentimes they are not fine with criticisms of building in places that are too hot to live without encasing yourself in a box of air conditioning (though people have done it), so maybe that's what he meant by saying what he did about destroying any semblance of a comfortable life.

Freder, to be constructive what are your top 10 or even 5 things people could and should do individually to reduce global warming. I think the attitude of a lot of global warming alarmists (hopefully you are bot included) is that the only thing that really matters is to favor (or to say that you favor) the transfer of a huge amount of power and control to the central government to control the way people live their lives; as long as you engage in that sort of virtue signalling, nothing else you do matters. You can take a Lear jet for a 20 mile trip (what responsible leader would do that), travel to Nova Scotia to see the solar eclipse, etc. As long as you virtue signal, nothing else in terms of individual responsibility is required - the government will take care of the rest.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton flew 20 miles on her private plane from Martha's Vineyard to Nantucket for a fundraiser. How much carbon did she put in the air? Add "climate criminal" to her lengthening rap sheet.

Your entire post perpetrates the lie that the only way we can cut carbon emissions significantly is to destroy the economy and any semblance of a comfortable life.

This is bullshit.

I see that Freder is resorting to the standard lefty ploy -- state something that is entirely true and label it false. Or bullshit. Or if all else fails call it incorrect.

But you will never, never, never find a lefty like Freder explaining why that statement is untrue, because they can't. Anymore than a Biblical literalist can explain how Joshua really did make the sun stand still -- not figuratively made the sun stand still (which I can accept) -- but literally made the sun stand still. You just have to have faith.

Like Freder has faith. Freder's gods may be Anthropogenic Global Warming and the modern Democrat Party, but he has faith and we are infidels.

" Ethically, Rieder says poor nations get some slack because they're still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world's. Plus, it just doesn't look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids. "

Pets are more important than people for many Libs. I well recall an NPR story about geese near airports and all the problems. Lib thinking was that the geese were there first and we had to just get used to it. Accommodate the geese. Work around their schedules. I say blast them to bits.

His big idea is for people to in wealthy countries be taxed for having babies, poor women to be paid to use birth control, and then with all the space the wealthy nations have created by not having babies, invite the refugees from the poor countries (whom we couldn't ethically tell not to have babies) to live here instead.

Fascinating article. Are his students aware that most of what he is teaching them is not only not consensus science, but is against the consensus (which I will assume is typified by the IPCC)?"By midcentury, possibly before, the average global temperature is projected to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius..." Uh, no. Not according to the IPCC, not even close. Not at their best guesstimate of climate sensitivity to CO2."In fact, without dramatic action, climatologists say, the world is on track to hit 4 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, and worse beyond that." Uh, no, not according to the IPCC, not even close.'Back in the classroom, Rieder puts this in less technical terms: 4 degrees of warming would be "largely uninhabitable for humans."' Not according to the IPCC. There would be heavy impacts, but nothing near that.

"Later, a few students say they had no idea the situation was so bad." Right. You are ignorant, he is ignorant. Listen to the scientific consensus instead. Read the IPCC report (its executive summary was written later by politicians; ignore.) Read the special IPCC report on extreme weather (SREX), where most of the really drastic impacts that everyone (e.g., the President) says are happening _now_ are categorized as "very unlikely" before the end of the century.

We conservatives like to knock the IPCC as being alarmist, and the "consensus" as being overblown, but it's worth noting that the "gray reports" that are used by a lot of the real alarmists are as much against consensus science as people who don't believe in AGW at all.

Comanche, I'm not disagreeing. It's more that from what I've heard it was a general consensus. I was surprised to see a contemporary-themed article in a 40 year old National Geographic. They were definitely leaning towards global warming, even as they were willing to note there were some who thought the pollution would reflect sunlight (causing cooling) rather than keep in the heat.

There are people in poor countries we don't dare tell they can't have babies, so we need to not have babies. Then they can come live here.

But the ethicist can't explain why I, as an individual, would care more about someone else's future offspring than my own? Or why we, as a country, would care more about the people from another country than the citizens of our own?

This doesn't appeal to the self-preservation instinct in humans, which is what has perpetuated us as a species.

Also, the elephant in the room for climate warming (if you believe it is a problem, and even if you do not it is a pretty big elephant in terms of bad things that are going to happen over the next 50 years) is the population explosion that is going on in Africa - 30 million people added last year. It's not fun to talk about what is going on in Africa or what we can or should do about it, if anything. More fun (less depressing) to talk about light bulbs. But the population explosion in Africa is the meteor that is definitely going to hit and hit hard in terms of global catastrophes. You think the immigration push into Europe is a problem now, just wait a few years.

Virgil- but that is actually this guy's goal. To allow that population explosion (because it would look bad to try to control it) and then let mass immigration happen into the wealthy countries! That's his plan!!!

"I can't wait for the testimony to actually begin in the Steyn/Mann and Mann/Steyn cases." Are you maybe kidding, or have you heard some news on a trial that has been dragging for years?http://www.steynonline.com/7534/trial-of-the-century-updateForever.

"Your entire post perpetrates the lie that the only way we can cut carbon emissions significantly is to destroy the economy and any semblance of a comfortable life." By far the most likely way that carbon emission will get cut is that alternatives will become cheaper. When solar energy (and batteries to store it for peak load) actually becomes cheaper overall than fossil fuels - which is probably somewhere around mid-century - everyone will switch away from fossil fuels without coercion.This is a temporary problem. In the meantime, if you're really concerned, support fracking; carbon emissions from natural gas are about half that from other fossil fuels. The US has cut its CO2 more than any of the Kyoto signatories, without trying at all, solely because of fracking.Also support new nuclear energy installations. If you really care.

This all leaves out Freeman Dyson's solution: that when we get good at bioengineering, we should be able to engineer plants that absorb and hang on to CO2's carbon. Turns out that a massive fraction of the CO2 in the world cycles through plants within a few years; it can be interrupted at that stage.Temporary problem.

By the bye: "Your entire post perpetrates the lie that the only way we can cut carbon emissions significantly is to destroy the economy and any semblance of a comfortable life." Whose post? The NPR post, that suggests that people _not have children_?

Fracking because of methane is not the solution. Conservation is where you begin, but again, the notion of that just turns a lot of people into instant victims. Maybe if Clint Eastwood advocated for it, people would feel less victimized.

What about Al Gore's mansions, yachts, villas? What about Hillary's 20 mile jet commute? What about all the Democrat (and Republican) Senator's and Congressmen's junkets, air-conditioning, limos, etc.? What about Leon DiCaprio's maga mansions and jet travel? In fact, if 'Climate Change/Global Warming' is real, why do all the 'scientist' fly jets to meets, why not telecommute and save all that carbon emission? Why does Barbra Streisand have a walk in freezer for all her fur she wears?

"Yes, dear. There are already too many people, all ruining the Earth."

"But you had us..."

"That was before I knew about Global Warming, silly. If I had known about Global Warming while I was pregnant I would've aborted you. For the Earth."

"So you'd would be happier if I was never here?"

"Don't take it personally, dear. It's just that I look at you and am ashamed for what I have done to the world."

"I don't know what to say..."

"One of the saddest days of my life was when I found out you weren't Gay."

"Excuse me?"

"If you were Gay you wouldn't reproduce. That would've taken some of my pain away..."

"Mother!"

"Are you SURE you're not Gay? I mean, did you ever try?"

"I have Hope for the Future. And if I were to have children I would have Hope for their Future, not Fear."

"Oh, dear, you have always been so naive. Your Generation is killing the World with your careless Heterosexual lifestyles. Maybe I should've been Gay: that would've been better, knowing what I know now."

"Mom!"

"I bet I could've learned to like licking pussy. Maybe even scissoring. Of course now after my hip and knee replacements I think my ability to scissor is gone."

"I don't think I want to be having this conversation..."

"Did I tell you I knew a lesbian when I was in college. Adorable girl. Pretty legs. Who knows what could've happened."

"Mother, I'm worried dementia might be setting in."

"God, I hope so. I can't wait until I forget forever what I have done to the World by having children. I won't even recognize you or your siblings. I will finally sleep with a clean conscience."

"I think I'm going to leave now..."

"In that gas-guzzling car of yours?"

"Mother, it's a compact."

"Sure, dear: whatever makes you feel better."

"Goodbye, Mother..."

"Goodbye, dear. Dear?"

"Yes, Mom?'

"You'll drive by next week with my medications? I don't think I'd live a week without them..."

Just normal lefty apologizing. All the lefties I know routinely apologize for what they nevertheless do, such as "I bought a new SUV, but feel bad about its contribution to global warming"; "we moved to a huge house in the suburbs, but feel bad about the commute"; etc., etc. Anything is OK as long as you feel bad about it, or pretend to.

"The CAGW numbers are all over the map. More importantly they are predictions and the predictions have been wildly wrong for years." Meh - I wasn't discussing the science. I was quoting the IPCC, as that is a reasonable place to start in representing the consensus of most climate scientists. If you are not an expert, and I am not an expert, that's a reasonable place to start, no matter what your favorite blog thinks - in either direction.

The study of the way the UN composes its population statistics is one of those interesting things one could do to save on calories during the long daylight hours of summer when all electronic devices and all air conditioning and all cars and all trips by the proles and for the proles have been Banned.

When you assess the birth rate in Africa don't forget to look into how many children die before they are five because that statistic changes the actual replacement rate. In other words, if a African woman has four children and two die before the age of five then she is barely at replacement level. Work that out for all the different countries and you see a different picture than the UN picture. There are paper almanacs with this information.

Then you can work out the lies involved in climate change statistics.

Statistics can be very cool if you study them in the basement in shorts and a T shirt. (You wear the shorts and T shirt.) And ACE Hardware has periodic LED sales of 100 watt equivalents for the one lamp allowed which you need for that very tiny, very crammed print.

MikeR is correct.Anyone truly concerned and not a complete silly twat would be backing nuclear power plants. With enough electric power nearly anything is possible, including net-CO2-free vehicle fuels. Very few are really concerned, this all is a political-corporatist issue to subsidize favored industries and increase political control of the economy. I've been arguing the nuke thing since the 1970's.Same people have always been against, nearly all for bad reasons/emotional needs.

As for low cost solar - no way Jose. The investment/maintenance cost required is way too high for even the theoretical yield. Way too much needs to be built for too little return, and because of the building required its a net negative overall on CO2. What really happens is electric rates go up, increasing cost of living and making industries less viable. Expensive electricity is a reason (not the biggest, but certainly one of them) CA and NY are an industrial debacle.

Ditto Laslo.We do live in San Francisco. Yes, this sort of idea is typical here, but not by people with kids, or grandkids so much, but among aged ladies rationalizing lack of children or grandchildren. As my abuelita always said, its "un consuelo de bobo" - a fools consolation. San Francisco, like other similar places, amounts to what Cavalli-Sforza called them, "population sinks" - where populations go to die. Sort of like one of those high tech insect extermination schemes that works by destroying fertility.

HT said...Fracking because of methane is not the solution. Conservation is where you begin, but again, the notion of that just turns a lot of people into instant victims. Maybe if Clint Eastwood advocated for it, people would feel less victimized.

Like coal miners.You know those giant turbine blades are made from graphite composites. It's true! You know where graphite comes from?

IPCC is just spinning predictions. Predictions of something that IPCC can't begin to understand. They are using models.

My model says the Cornhusker football team will be undefeated this year and beat the Badgers by 40 points. Same thing. I used my model and made a prediction. Sorry to say but my model has been wrong for years.

If nuclear power were rationally regulated it could compete very successfully with any fossil fuel system. The only big problem with nukes, modern US LWR included, is extremely expensive regulatory hurdles massively increasing construction costs.

"IPCC is just spinning predictions. Predictions of something that IPCC can't begin to understand. They are using models." Whatever. I'm not going to spend time on this. Your favorite blog disagrees, fine. Travis Rieder's favorite blog disagrees in the other direction, fine.Unless someone actually works through the math, I am not really interested in his or her opinion of the science. That doesn't make the IPCC right; it does limit the size of the competition. It makes more sense to start with the IPCC reports than with your favorite blog. That is (for instance) what Bjorn Lomborg does: He's not involved with the IPCC's physical science part, so he just accepts their results and discusses how that affects the economics. Doesn't mean they're right, but that is the most sensible first pass.

Its a curious thing, to twist the conceptual frame a bit, to go on a bit of a different slant from "Idiocracy", and to take seriously the concept of memes as manufactured, purposeful devices.What is achieved by the memes that so effectively exterminate the most intelligent, creative fraction of this society?Because that is what all this is achieving. People can be talked to death, non-violently. Why, and who benefits?

The most sensible first pass is to look at the data, which is what an engineer would do. There is a great deal out there and the satellite/weather balloon datasets are public. It doesnt take much to tell an engineer that there isn't much quality data.

"But you can't ignore that the IPCC's predictions have been high compared with the actual temperature record." Personally, I agree with you; Nic Lewis's lower sensitivity estimates seem like a good corrective step for the field. But then I'm not in the field, so let them work it out; there is other work trying to see if the discrepancy can be explained within the original modeling.But I think many are still missing my original point: Even if one wants to go with the "consensus", and accept the IPCC's estimates of sensitivity, this article is still very wrong. It takes for granted some fringe high-end alarmist opinions that are against the consensus of climate scientists. Surely that is a better thing to point out than for me to insist on my own version of the science? Like "I prefer Nic Lewis!" is going to convince anyone.

The best approach is the suspicious one, which is the scientific one. One has to assume this global warming stuff is wrong, until proven right. The IPCC et al insists that all assume it is right, and politically at least does all it can to prevent it being proven wrong.This is enormously suspicious in itself. It opens the way to the other angle, where this isnt a matter of physical science but politics and economics. From an intelligence analysis point of view, the question then becomes qui bono.

"[Lomborg] He's not involved with the IPCC's physical science part, so he just accepts their results and discusses how that affects the economics. Doesn't mean they're right, but that is the most sensible first pass."************************

NO IT IS NOT!!! For a non-scientist it might be, but scientists would not simply accept findings without solid evidence that the claims and predictions are reproducible. CAGW can't offer that kind of evidence. Worse, warmistas' dire predictions are being falsified daily by Nature itself: NO "extreme weather", NO unusual changes in ocean temperature or pH, NO acceleration in sea levels. NO extinctions from claimed rises in atmospheric and ocean temps (as if the Earth hasn't undergone such changes in its geologic past, and organisms are suddenly ultr-fragile).

If Althouse truly believes what the global warming/climate change proponents say is happening then these minor changes in lifestyle will do absolutely nothing to prevent the harmful effects of CO2 emissions. E.g., sea level rise, more and more powerful storms, more extreme weather, droughts, disruption in the food supply.

Sorry, but this comes across as posturing, virtue-signalling and nothing more.

Listen to what they say we need to do: reduce our carbon emissions by 100% in the next few years. Not half, not two-thirds, but 100%.

The thing about modern nuclear energy is that it is safe. Extremely safe. Not the reactors being phased out, but the ones on the drawing boards. One of the big differences is that they are designed fail safe. That often misused word means here that when they fail in any way, they automatically shutdown safely. Meltdowns cannot happen, because their nuclear reactions have to be actively maintained, and when that active maintenance is removed, they shut down automatically. Big difference from the past, where you had to actively shut reactors down, before they went critical. If that active means of shutdown failed, you got your meltdown. Another trend is smaller, potentially much smaller size, and, therefore modularity. Small cities could theoretically have their own nuclear plants, alleviating the massive transmission problems (including instability) that we see today (kinda like we have here with our hydro power - we have one plant a half mile away, and another 20 miles down river).

One of the best ways I have seen over the years to keep up with the state of nuclear power on a layman's level is by reading IEEE's Spectrum. I have been reading it at least since they had an article detailing what went wrong at Three Mile Island (it was primarily caused by a human engineering problem).

Conservation is fundamentally stupid. It wastes resources chasing energy savings as a good in itself, when its cheaper and simpler to provide more energy. The resources wasted on efficiency and cobservation are tremendous, diverted from actually improving utility to people and distribution of technology. Conservation is one basic cause of western technological paralysis, I am convinced of that. Its an unworthy, useless goal.

Nancy Nolan should be a Trump supporter as he's had only 1.67 children per wife of child-bearing age, whereas the other 3 candidates have had two, and he's going to ruin the global economy, which will help arrest climate change too.

A liberal, I read somewhere, is someone who wants to reach in and adjust the water temperature for you while you take a shower. It seems apropos for this thread.

Everyone should relax and read, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, a history of popular folly by Scottish journalist, Charles Mackay, first published in 1841. And, of course, vote Trump 2016! Ivanka 2024!

secure rope over beam climb step stool close eyes pat yourself on back and take one for the team, foolishness. your affect on "G W" equals a grain of sand in the Mojave THE SUN is both our heater and thermostat- get on with your lives.

"NO IT IS NOT!!! For a non-scientist it might be, but scientists would not simply accept findings without solid evidence that the claims and predictions are reproducible. CAGW can't offer that kind of evidence. Worse, warmistas' dire predictions are being falsified daily by Nature itself: NO "extreme weather", NO unusual changes in ocean temperature or pH, NO acceleration in sea levels. NO extinctions from claimed rises in atmospheric and ocean temps (as if the Earth hasn't undergone such changes in its geologic past, and organisms are suddenly ultr-fragile)."Please. "warmistas' dire predictions" doesn't describe the IPCC; all these dire predictions were found to be unlikely or very unlikely by the IPCC SREX. Thus this doesn't disprove the IPCC at all.I can't control what others do, but I would encourage those on my side to avoid thinking that they know everything about a subject because a blog they agree with says so. It's annoying enough when those on the other side do it.

One problem I have with the IPCC reports has been their assignments of likelihood as if they were dealing in statistical probabilities. How do you assign a likelihood to your premises being correct, and correctly weighted?

@MikeR - my problem with the actual IPC science is the question of how does science get in the IPC reports, and how does it get funded. ClimateGate showed us how the first part was heavily gamed by AGW zealots. They controlled what got published, and what got in the IPC reports. As for the latter, at least in the US, most AGW/AGCC research is funded, in some way or another, by our federal govt, and the people deciding what research gets funded, and what doesn't, tend very much to be believers in AGW/AGCC. This seems to be changing, but with Obama in the White House, the marching orders are pretty clear, and I expect Crooked Hillary to be worse (because she and her people appear more cynical)

The Greenies are disappointed that the global catastrophes promised by the high priests and prophets of Gaia, including Paul Erhlich, William and Paul Paddock, and Gaylord Nelson, haven't yet happened, so they're taking matters into their own hands. Mother Earth will be better off without them.

Unless someone actually works through the math, I am not really interested in his or her opinion of the science.

No need, Mike. The root problem is not the science, it is the data which that science works with. The historical temperature record is so unreliable, that it is ridiculous to use it for science.

We have virtually no historical records for more than 50% of the Earth's surface, the oceans outside shipping lanes. Another 25% we have very sketchy records from ships that really never had any need or interest in collecting precise temperature data. All they cared about was whether the water coming into the condenser was warm or cool.

Then we have land records. Thermometers moved all over the place, urban heat islands being built up around many of them, uncalibrated thermometers poorly read. Readings at different times of day and so on.

For example, the average temps for the entire Northern Territories of Canada, about the size of the US, is based on a single station for most of the 20th century. Do you think that is representative of the average temp of the area?

Or the famous tree rings. A "scientist" claims to be able to measure average world temperature by tree rings in a single location. It is doubtful that he can even make precise temperature conclusions for that location much less the world from tree rings.

Any 'science", any "math" based on this historical data is going to be bogus. You can't get good results from bad data, no matter how much you torture the numbers.

We might be able to detect a temperature rise of 10 deg F/5C from this data. Maybe.

"Listen to what they say we need to do: reduce our carbon emissions by 100% in the next few years. Not half, not two-thirds, but 100%."

Actually, if you believe the warmist claptrap, what we need to do is reduce our CO2 emissions by 100% thirty or forty years ago. The current level is already too high, and the cycle time is measured in centuries. The Warmist position amounts to, "Oh, Nos! We've gone off the cliff! Better hit the brakes!"

One of the few hopeful trends in our ongoing cultural trainwreck is the tendency of the Left to embrace abortion, suicide, contraception, homosexuality - anything that keeps their genes out of the gene pool. They won't be missed, no, they never will be missed.

I don't think they should have kids either. I think 'One generation and done' is about right for these twenty-first century 'Shakers'. Hope they leave us some good recipes like the Shakers did but it will probably be all kale and non-fat yogurt.

"And yet, when she imagines raising a child, Ferorelli says she can't help but envision the nightmare scenarios that have dogged her since she first heard the term "global warming" in elementary school."

"Please. "warmistas' dire predictions" doesn't describe the IPCC; all these dire predictions were found to be unlikely or very unlikely by the IPCC SREX. Thus this doesn't disprove the IPCC at all.I can't control what others do, but I would encourage those on my side to avoid thinking that they know everything about a subject because a blog they agree with says so. It's annoying enough when those on the other side do it."

************

First, no one reads the IPCC text, only the summaries--THAT's what drives the public debates, the scary articles in the press, and rabid comments of the policy makers.

Just yesterday Obama was warning us that the Statue of Liberty is at risk of being submerged. Did HE read the IPCC to arrive at that conclusion? Do you really think he or his advisors like Holdren ever will?

Second, I have an engineering degree with gobs of real science-- I don't just read a blog that agrees with me. I also don't claim to know everything about this topic, but it seems you think you do. Your snotty condescension is entirely misplaced.

Finally, I repeat: it is utter foolishness to engage in "analysis" of claims without having sold evidence that the claims are true. Lomborg's said that "even if true", the IPCC's remedies would call for huge amounts of expenditures with only immeasurable results.

But he later said the IPCC's conclusions and predictions have not held up:

"The bigger problem for the IPCC is that global temperature has risen little or not at all in the last 10-20 years. To be clear, this slowdown does not mean that there is no global warming – there is; but it does call into question how much.To its credit, the IPCC admits that “models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in the surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.” This matters, because if the models overshoot for recent decades, the century-long forecasts are open to doubt.Compared to the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159% (see graph). A new Nature Climate Change study shows that the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise over the last 15 years by more than 300%."

Note that he contradicts himself: if there's little or no global warming, how can manmade sources be the source of no global warming? Why have CO2 concentrations inexorably increased over the last 100-odd years, but global temperatures have not?

Worse, as John Henry says our datasets establishing ocean and air temps are entirely inadequate to the task: it's only the past thirty years or so that we've had truly global coverage. It offends engineers to see "scientists" claiming to tease out temp changes in the tenths or one-hundredths of a degree from prior data that was never systematically gathered using calibrated instruments all over the entire globe.

'"Unless someone actually works through the math, I am not really interested in his or her opinion of the science." No need, Mike. The root problem is not the science, it is the data which that science works with.'Unless someone actually works through the math, I am not really interesting in his or her opinion of the data.

'You really can't "work through" a model. It's one of the problems with this field.' The models are published and available (unlike some other parts of the field). They are very flawed, but so is every model, some more than others. One always needs to make decisions based on imperfect information. Of course, the right decision might be, Let's wait till we can get better information.

'Second, I have an engineering degree with gobs of real science-- I don't just read a blog that agrees with me. I also don't claim to know everything about this topic, but it seems you think you do. Your snotty condescension is entirely misplaced.'Very nice for you. It happens that I have a physics degree with gobs of real science, but that is totally irrelevant, as is your engineering degree.You don't claim to know everything about this topic. I go further - I claim to know almost nothing about the topic in the only way that counts: I have not read the detailed papers and worked through the math myself. Nothing else counts, and I don't have the time, nor the inclination.What I do is read various reports about the science and try to make up my mind what to believe and what to do when I am not an expert myself. I try not to fool myself about expertise I don't have. I try not to make actual statements about the science, as I am not an expert.I also will not allow others to claim expertise unless they actually have it - in the only way that counts (see above). If that counts as "snotty condescension", so be it.

Presumably one must choose a job that generates income in the most carbon-free way possible and then donate every cent of excess money (excess to barely keeping one alive, that is) to carbon-reducing charities, as well.

I simply cannot wait to hear that we can't cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood because if we do the decreased number of abortions will increase global warming. Can't wait.

All that Althouse said or just join a nature commune, grow your own food naturally, stay away from cooking except when food spoilage and contamination is eminent, employ the "three dog night" concept to conserve warmth in the winter and never construct a shelter large than 10' by 10' to minimize heating requirements. Stay away from service providers and learn to administer to you own needs. Read about pulling your own teeth, overcoming sickness, teaching your kids and how to conserve all of nature's goodness. Remember that our ancestors found cave-living acceptable. And the cheapest way to make money is to stand at a busy intersection with a catchy sign like, "Too ugly to be a prostitute, Too honest to steal." Oh, before I forget, sign up to be a member of the Church of Gaia otherwise known as The Church of the Latter Day Aints."

"The sum will come out, tomorrow!"I mean:Your entire post perpetrates the lie that the only way we can cut carbon emissions significantly is to destroy the economy and any semblance of a comfortable life.

1: "Nancy and the Weepers" are saying "don't have kids, you'll destroy the planet!" You have a problem with that, take it up with them, not Ann.

2: Nuclear power is a great "carbon neutral" power source. "Nancy and the Weepers" hate it. Which probably indicates they want to destroy the world, for everyone but themselves.

3: For you, MakeR, and anyone else who wants to understand science, here's the gist"

A: The point and purpose of science is to makes testable and falsifiable predictions, and then test them.If you're not doing that, it's not science.

B: The fundamental core4 of the scientific method is "trust, but verify."

To expand: You publish results of an experiment, we trust that you aren't lying, making up data, screwing with the data, etc.

However, anyone who wants to has an absolute right to demand you give them every shred of information they need in order to recreate and validate your experiment and results.

It requires a special cell line? Then you have to be willing to give copies to just about anyone who asks, for the cost of packaging it up and sending it off.

It requires a big pool of data you went through a lot of effort to collect? That's nice, give the whole pool to whoever asks, along with detailed directions on what you did to the pool to trim it down to the results you got. (Many errors, and a lot of fraud, come from the "filtering" step. So no, you don't get to just give the data you consider important.)

"Climate science" isn't a scientific field, because people are allowed to publish papers that ignore those basic rules (see "ClimateGate").

It's your absolute guarantee that someone is a fraud: they refuse to release the data behind their published work to their worst enemy. Valid science gives the same answer no matter who does the research.

Didn't Laurie David once suggest we should all just use one square of toilet paper? Or was it her friend Sheryl Crow? And whatever happened to them, anyway? They used to be very prominent in every story on global warming activism. You never hear from them anymore.

gadfly,Tried the "three dog night" thing. Each one complained the other two really were ugly. None of them would wear a collar. I couldn't train them to stay out of shoe stores, even with shock collars.

Bruce says that modern nuclear power is safe and he is right, much safer than older technologies. Pretty much every newer technology is safer than what preceded it.

But even the old time plants were not particularly unsafe. We've had 3 events: Chernobyl, Fukashima, Three Mile Island. How many people died, total, of radiation from all of them together?

Less than 60 in Chernobyl, all first responders rushing into the fire. Even after the the one reactor melted down catastrophically, 2 of the others continued in operation for another 10 or so years and the 4th continued in construction. All within spitting distance of the first.

One of the best movies ever made on the safety of nuclear power plants is The China Syndrome. I think everyone should see it. It tried to be a movie about the dangers of nuclear power, it turned out to be a paean to the safety of nuclear power.

See it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF0kEflDy4U Download it quick, my experience with full movies is that they don't stay up long.

Your entire post perpetrates the lie that the only way we can cut carbon emissions significantly is to destroy the economy and any semblance of a comfortable life.

This is bullshit.

Is it? I think not. What Ann is saying is that if you want actually to reduce carbon emissions significantly, you ought to be prepared to remake your life. And she's not asking of you anything very difficult. Change your exercise. Change your recreation. Cut the TV and the CD player and the video games and (to the extent possible) the computers. Don't use a lot of artificial light, and if you do, make sure it's the energy-cheap kind. Read (books, not Kindle), and read for preference books from libraries or free exchanges. Play board games. Talk. Is all of this so very horrible?

Now, how does any of this "destroy the economy"? How does any of it remove any "semblance of a comfortable life"? It ought to occur to you that, from the standpoint of the vast majority of human beings, Althouse's is a description of a comfortable life. Sucks to be them, yes?

I ought to say up front that I'm not doing a lot of this. I don't drive, but Althouse has said that walking doesn't necessarily gain you points. You will take my CD player away when you pry it from my cold, dead hands, and the same goes for the computer on which I'm typing this. We have CFLs and LEDs basically everywhere, and our car is a ZEV -- but it's a Tesla. I leave the lights off most of the time (my husband is less reliable there), but there are some lights on most of the day. I will absolutely not give up AC. Or, rather, I will give up my AC when Pope Francis gives up the Vatican's, and not a moment before.

Actually, if you believe the warmist claptrap, what we need to do is reduce our CO2 emissions by 100% thirty or forty years ago. The current level is already too high, and the cycle time is measured in centuries. The Warmist position amounts to, "Oh, Nos! We've gone off the cliff! Better hit the brakes!"

I'm not sure about 30/40 years ago but I know Hansen has said that it's too late.

Others among the proponents of climate change say that unless we reduce emissions by 100% over the next several years that it's too late. Even the "realists" among the warming crowd say we need to fundamentally change things.

Making these marginal life style changes that Althouse lists is going to do nothing. Althouse can be both brilliant and silly. Which is why, I think, people enjoy reading her. You never know what you'll get when you open the package.

I know a well-to-do couple who do not want children, because they are both committed to their careers and enjoy traveling. Children would put a crimp in their lifestyle and they frankly admit they don't want the responsibility.

Freder Frederson said... "Your entire post perpetrates the lie that the only way we can cut carbon emissions significantly is to destroy the economy and any semblance of a comfortable life.

This is bullshit."

Freder apparently has turned tail and run, but it is his statement that is bullshit. IF you believe the standard AGW hypothesis only drastic carbon reductions now will save us (maybe). I have a cousin who's a climate scientist. She believes things like, for example, all personal air travel must be banned. It's an inevitable conclusion of their models. As I said upthread, the Clean Power Act Obama wants reduces warming by 0.018 degrees a century from now. Obviously, much, much more must be done and it must be done now. Freder is either lying or he is clueless.

It's an inevitable conclusion of their models. As I said upthread, the Clean Power Act Obama wants reduces warming by 0.018 degrees a century from now. Obviously, much, much more must be done and it must be done now. Freder is either lying or he is clueless.

That's how I read it.

If their models are correct - and they haven't been but they say they are - then in order to reduce emissions to the degree necessary to save us from catastrophic harm we need to fundamentally change the way we live.

"I also will not allow others to claim expertise unless they actually have it - in the only way that counts (see above). If that counts as "snotty condescension", so be it."

**************

There you have it, ladies and gents: another Science Totalitarian who "won't allow" people to disagree with him. Oh really? Who sent up the white smoke making YOU the Climate Pope, chump?

The only reason I brought my background is because YOU sneering claimed I got my info from one blog that I agree with. I agree that credentialism is not an argument---but then again making spurious claims you have no basis for isn't, either.

And what is your expertise? Judging from what You've written here, not a SINGLE instance of scientific reasoning, not a SINGLE factual refutation of any claim made regarding the lack of evidence for CAGW, just a bunch of irrelevant mush about what the IPCC "really" says, and a load of snot flung onto those who disagree and point to the science data (not models) as evidence.

Where are YOU published? What blogs do YOU agree with?

But OK, skippy: fresh off the presses is non-scientist/non-technical Weepy Warmista Weenie Bill McKibbon, who gives a full-throated declaration that "we" must treat Climate Change as if we were at war:

If no one has kids, it won't be long until no one cares about climate change. Nor even the idea that there is a climate. Nor will any of the lifeforms left feel any appreciation for the humans who sacrificed their own species for the good of... what, exactly?

Back in the classroom, Rieder puts this in less technical terms: 4 degrees of warming would be "largely uninhabitable for humans."

Why?

Most of the world experiences at least 10 degrees F variation every day. Perhaps all of the world. Most of the world, certainly outside of the tropics experiences 50 degrees F variation over the course of a normal year. Many places in northern climes experience 100 degrees between annual low and high.

4 degrees higher average temperature just doesn't seem like a very big deal to me. It might be a big deal if it happened between now and Tuesday. Even then, probably not. And nobody is talking abut a sudden rise, it is going to occur over a century or so.

If you believe the forecasts and there is no reason to. They not only can't predict the future, they are pretty horrible at predicting the past.

They've predicted total disappearance of the Arctic ice cap at least 3 times so far. By 1992, by 2008(?) by 2016 and now by 2020. Sure they will be right eventually. Won't they?

And the Russians are spending $10bn on a new fleet of heavy duty icebreakers. Just sayin'

"There you have it, ladies and gents: another Science Totalitarian who "won't allow" people to disagree with him. Oh really? Who sent up the white smoke making YOU the Climate Pope, chump?"Wow. Read harder. The only way I "won't allow" it is that I post comments disagreeing with people who do it. Jeepers.Apparently what happens when I do that is that some people freak out and post back in ALL CAPS. If they don't bother to think about what I said.

"And what is your expertise?" Again, did you read what I said? I don't have any. I said that. I'm not an expert. You're (apparently) not an expert. Bill McKibbon is not an expert.So what is freaking you out? That I think that since we aren't experts, we probably don't really know much about the subject. Only what we were told by someone we trust (i.e., our favorite blog). Which isn't much of a basis for certainty in a hotly contested field.

It doesn't even seem to matter to you that I agree with you (read my first three comments here). Even someone who agrees with you will cause you to FLIP OUT if he suggests that your right as an American to opine on things that you know little about, doesn't make your opinions any more valuable. Not mine neither.

@JPS: "One problem I have with the IPCC reports has been their assignments of likelihood as if they were dealing in statistical probabilities. How do you assign a likelihood to your premises being correct, and correctly weighted?"Yeah, I feel that way too. But then, what they are (supposed to be) trying to do isn't easy; how do you present a fair cross-section of what the field believes? The usual way in science is that you don't. You just wait till things settle out, however long that takes. Here that isn't a good option, as "the world is waiting"...

The jury may be out on whether having kids is good for Gaia, but having kids is definitely good for ME.

As my parent's generation ages, I wonder how people without kids get by. Aging relatives means running into issues that really require someone very committed, who loves the affected person very much, to deal with it.

Sure, there is plenty of infrastructure in place to assist, but there are certain core issues that are very difficult to outsource, even when problems do not arise. And problems do arise. Boy howdy, do they arise.

My parents planned meticulously for old age, and in general things have gone smoothly, but there were and still are some significant issues. Pretty much all of my friends are either involved heavily with their aging parents life, or have a sibling who is involved heavily.

How do people without children navigate their twilight years? Some of them, I suppose, have nephews and nieces who can step in, or have married a partner with children from a first marriage. But the ratio of aging uncles and aunts to helpful nephews and nieces is increasing. What is the solution?

The earth is 4 billion years old, and the climate has been changing for that entire period. We have fossil records and geological records that give us a glimpse of changes in the most recent 100,000 of those years. Anthropology can tell us about population movements, suggesting people relocated as regions grew warmer or cooler or more wet or dry for perhaps the last 10,000 years.

Our climate tracking is imperfect and has been done for less than 200 years. We don't know what we don't know.

I'm willing to do what I can to reduce my carbon footprint, but I am not willing to sign onto a broad agenda advanced by a bunch of activists who haven't taken a science class since high school.

People love to predict catastrophes, biblical in scope, and yet nothing ever comes of it. Since I live in a part of California that long ago was supposed to fall into the ocean, this is just hilariously stupid. When a scientist engages in politics, and has an agenda he is trying to sell, he is no different from any other con man. He is no longer a scientist, he's not even a political scientist. Predicting the future is not science, it is probability. It is no more scientific than the Daily Racing Form. People have lost a lot of money reading the Daily Racing Form, I might add.

My wife and I are both only children for whom natural children did not come our way. Our parents are all gone, and on top of that both of us are the youngest of all our respective cousins. The last time I posted my fears of what might happen to us when later we likely find ourselves old and alone navigating the mercy of professionals with at best indifference, if not an active interest in our demise, I was mocked.